Moderate Islam: “the most radical form of the religion.”
To say that Islam and the Muslims of Europe and North America are under pressure is an understatement. In fact, the Muslims feel under siege. On one side of the squeeze are certain non-Muslims who do not wish Islam to be seen as a religion of peace, moderation and ethical values that cuts across faiths traditions and cultural systems.
Whether out of Islamophobia or political convenience, people of this persuasion love to demonise Islam and Muslims as the main sources of violence and terrorism in the modern world. They have succeeded in turning this image of violence and terrorism into a dangerous stereotype, a self-evident truth that needs no substantiation. The fact that the majority of Muslims speak against violence and terrorism, regardless of its origins or the identity of its perpetrators, cuts no ice with these confirmed Islamophobes and political opportunists.
From the other side, Islam and Muslims have come under attack from within the fold by a small minority of extremists who wish to hijack the peaceful message of Islam, replacing it with bloodthirsty assertions about what true Islam really is. These Muslims believe that interpretations of Islam that speak of peace, moderation and the ethics of justice and toleration are acts of surrender to the power of anti-Muslims who wish to destroy Islam from within.
The logic of both parties is the same: a moderate Islam that is willing to live in harmony with itself and at peace with others if they are willing to do the same, is a historical aberration, a posture of dissimulation and deceit, or an abominable act of surrender to the enemy. The implacable enmity of these two camps to a moderate Islam loyal to its universal truths and values paradoxically makes it the most radical form of the religion.

Shams al-Nahar 7:42 am on October 19, 2009 Permalink |
I object also to the ridicule of islamic science. The Muhyyidin postulated a kind of string theory some 1400 years ago, in his theoretic work on time and cosmology. A theory of spacetime.
Muslim astronomers were heliocentrists ages before the ignorant papists.
SBH, cognitive neuroscience, evolutionary biology, quantum consciousness theory and cognitive anthropology are validating many purely islamic concepts.
Meanwhile the xians still whine and bleat about young earth creationism.
aziz 8:58 am on October 19, 2009 Permalink |
you’re talking about Islamic philosophy and metaphysics, not science, though. There was indeed muslim science, and it seeded the Enlightenment, but its important to note the difference between meta and nonmeta.
Shams al-Nahar 9:28 am on October 19, 2009 Permalink |
No I am talking about science…..SBH and quantum consciousness and spacetime.
I thought you read Steaphenson.
aziz 10:01 am on October 19, 2009 Permalink |
dont cite fiction to me in a topic about science
Anathem = ++good, but the core concepts in the book are presented explicitly as philosophy, esp the HTW vs the Proc divide. Its only when events outside the narrative intrude that things are resolved one way or another, and not even then. The only character who ever implemented philosophy in a scietific way was Jad, and his type wasnt labeled an “Incanter” for nothing. It was, essentially, magic.
Shams al-Nahar 10:23 am on October 19, 2009 Permalink
metaphysics
There are more things under heaven and in earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio.
Shams al-Nahar 10:28 am on October 19, 2009 Permalink
also, too.
the rise of The Third Culture.
Where science becomes philosophy….blur the border.
Shams al-Nahar 10:33 am on October 19, 2009 Permalink
i can’t link this…..heres the abstract…
Shams al-Nahar 10:35 am on October 19, 2009 Permalink
And of course, the Hamerhoff/Penrose model of Orchestrated Quantum Consciousness.
aziz 10:59 am on October 19, 2009 Permalink
of course there ar more things in heaven and earth than the human brain can comprehend – that’s even true if you exclude Heaven, for after all we have Godel. Obviously I am sympathetic to these concepts; I’m devout and a scientist both!
And I am of course also strongly sympathetic to mathematical Platonism. But that doesnt mean we can abuse the term “science”. All of this – even Hammerhoff and Penrose, or any of the other excellent source materials used by NS in Anathem (and the Baroque Cycle) – are still talking about philsophy and metaphysics, not something empirical.
The day someone actually devises an experiment that lets s test for the validity of “quantum consciousness” or the HTL is the day it ceases being meta. But until then, its not science.
Its tempting to throw everything into the “quantum” bin – like the origin of consciousness – but its still specualtioon until someone theorizes a model of how QM can actually – mathematically, not in fiction prose – serve as a thinking (not just computing) substrate and then actually builds a model that does it.
shams 11:06 am on October 19, 2009 Permalink
This is empirical.
I am arguing that the border between the classical and quantum worlds, between thought and material objects, is becoming permeable.
What say you?
shams 11:13 am on October 19, 2009 Permalink
Also, too.
The corpus callosum of musicians changes morphology.
Metaphysics is the science of thought that can affect the physical world, the non-coporeal affecting the coporeal.
Sub-atomic alchemy.
shams 11:15 am on October 19, 2009 Permalink
gak!
The corpus callosum of musicians changes IN morphology.
Composing and playing music changes the physical structure of the brain.
aziz 11:16 am on October 19, 2009 Permalink
Thats an interesting study to me in particular since I do MRI brain imaging, but I’m afraid I dont agree it validates the thesis that we have empirical evidence for merging QM and consciousness. I dont think we are gonna agree here, matok.. invoking MRI with me is a giant tangent and I dont wanna go there righgtnow.
shams 11:22 am on October 19, 2009 Permalink
shams<— Incanter
shams 11:24 am on October 19, 2009 Permalink
I dont wanna go there righgtnow.
another time then….but you should muse on subatomic alchemy and magick…..in your spare time lol!
<3
aziz 8:58 am on October 19, 2009 Permalink |
and Christians have no monopoly on creationist dogma, either.
Shams al-Nahar 9:17 am on October 19, 2009 Permalink |
so? the lower part of the bellcurve doesn’t have substrate for much anything but dogma….western countries have the benefit of open information and educational egalitarianism…..there is no excuse for western xians.
Shams al-Nahar 9:14 am on October 19, 2009 Permalink |
String theory IS metaphysics, dude.
lol
aziz 10:59 am on October 19, 2009 Permalink |
yes! and therein is the problem.
shams 11:23 pm on October 19, 2009 Permalink |
Sci-fi is how we test drive the future before we get there.
Dean Esmay 5:43 pm on October 19, 2009 Permalink |
Creationism as a strain of thought didn’t became anything really important in the West until the rise of Christian Fundamentalism, particularly in the United States and a few parts of Europe and the UK. Evolution and natural selection barely caused a ripple with the “ignorant papists,” who pronounced it fully compatible with Christian thought a hundred years ago.
Also the “ignorant papists” actually struggled quite a bit less with heliocentrism than non-Papist Christians. QUITE a bit less. On my blog, a good discussion of that. Way better than the dreck we’ve had lately, anyway.